On the evening of December 12, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision
in Bush v Gore, 00-949. The majority decision said that the Florida
presidential vote recount, as it has been handled so far, violates the 14th
amendment's Equal Protection clause, because different counties handle manual
recounts of ambiguous ballots in different ways. The Court also said that since
the count must be complete by December 12, it is too late for any governmental
body to set uniform, specific standards in time for this year's election, and
therefore there can be no official recount.

Seven justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause requires specific
standards for recounting votes. Justices Ruth Ginsburg and John Stevens did not
feel that the recount procedures violate equal protection.

The majority said, "When the state legislature vests the right to vote for
president in its people, the right to vote is fundamental; and one source of its
fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal
dignity owed to each voter.... The right to vote is protected in more than the
initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the
manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms,
the state may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one
person's vote over than of another.... We have observed that the idea that one
group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one
man, one vote basis of our representative government."

The Court has received a great deal of criticism for its ruling that December
12 is the deadline. However, that has diverted attention away from the Court's
ruling on the Equal Protection Clause, which will help to win lawsuits in the
future against the following practices:

1. Vote tallies: some states refuse to tally write-in votes, even when
those same states have a procedure by which write-in candidates who are serious
and who want a tally, file a write-in declaration of candidacy. These states are
Oregon, Virginia and Washington. Certain other states, such as New Hampshire and
Pennsylvania, also refuse to tally any write-ins, although it would be a great
deal of work for them to do so since they have no filing procedure for serious
write-ins, and they would need to tally all of them.

It should be possible to argue that since every voter must be treated
equally, it is unconstitutional for the state to count and report some valid
votes, and refuse to count and tally other valid votes.

2. Ballot labels: Virginia law, effective January 1, 2001, says that
the non-presidential candidates of old, established parties (those that polled
10% at either of the last two elections), may have a party label printed next to
their names on ballots. Everyone else must be labeled "independent" even if they
are really candidates of unqualified parties. It should be possible to use
Bush v Gore to overturn this discriminatory practice. If Republican
voters and Democratic voters may have the assistance of a label to help them
know whom to vote for, voters of other parties with candidates in the race
should have such help.

Louisiana law forbids any label at all for non-presidential candidates,
unless they are members of a qualified party (which means Democrats and
Republicans only; there are no qualified minor parties in the state). This
policy is currently being challenged in federal court (Rosenthal v
McKeithen), and Bush v Gore should help to win this case.
Somewhat similar cases are pending in Ohio, and may be filed in Tennessee for
the next election.

3. Ballot design: mechanical voting machines in some states give each
major party its own separate row or column, but force some minor parties to
share a column or a row with other minor parties. This produces a ballot in
which many, if not most, voters, can't even find certain candidates.

Electronic ballots sometimes put candidates for the same office on different
pages, so that a voter may have voted on the first page before seeing the entire
list of candidates. The voters who support the candidates who are listed on the
second page (always minor party and independent candidates) have a harder time
voting. These design problems can now be attacked in court.

4. Ballot access: It should be easier to win constitutional ballot
access cases, especially those involving a presidential election. In November
2000, it was impossible for Oklahoma and South Dakota voters to cast a vote for
Ralph Nader, since he wasn't on the ballot and write-ins are banned. Nader
voters were not treated equally with Bush and Gore voters in those two states.

5. Treatment of voters at the polls: although this isn't specifically
a problem for minor party members, it is a serious general problem. Some
counties in Florida (generally more affluent counties) had e-mail devices at the
polls, so that if a voter appeared whose name was not on the precinct list,
precinct officials could easily ask the county elections office to check the
voter's status. In other, generally poorer counties, there was no remedy except
to try to telephone the county for more information about the voter's status.
The telephone lines were usually busy, so voters couldn't get their status
resolved and were not permitted to vote. In the future, federal courts will have
jurisdiction to solve the problem.

The chart below
shows the vote for president, as certified by the various states. Candidates not
shown on the chart, but who were on the ballot in at least one state, were:
Monica Moorehead (Workers World), who received 1,804 in Florida, 199 in
Rhode Island, 1,729 in Washington state, and 1,063 in Wisconsin, for a total of
4,795; L. Neil Smith (Arizona Libertarian nominee), who received 5,775 in
Arizona; Cathy Brown (independent) who received 1,606 in Tennessee;
Dennis Lane (Grassroots), who received 1,044 in Vermont; Randall
Venson (independent) who received 535 in Tennessee; Earl Dodge
(Prohibition) who received 208 in Colorado; and Louie Youngkeit
(independent) who received 161 in Utah.

On October 13, an Alabama state court ruled that minor parties need not
nominate candidates until July. The Democratic Party had filed the lawsuit,
seeking to keep Reform Party candidates off the ballot for county office, on the
grounds that the law really requires minor parties to nominate in April.
Eagerton v Bennett, civ-2000-2223R, Montgomery.

Since the petition deadline for new parties is in July, if the Democratic
Party had prevailed, this would have meant that new and minor parties would be
forced to choose their candidates months before they were required to have
qualified for the ballot.

1. California: on January 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will probably say
whether they will hear Jones v Schaefer, 00-675, on whether
candidates for Congress need to be registered voters. Both sides have asked the
Court to hear the case.

California (2): on December 18, a State Appeals Court ruled that
warehouse-style stores need not permit petitioners on their parking lots, even
though shopping centers must permit such petitioning. Waremart v
Progressive Campaigns, C34318.

2. Colorado: the U.S. Supreme Court will hold arguments in
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign v FEC, 00-191, on February 28.
The issue is whether the Constitution protects the right of political parties to
donate as much money as they wish to their own nominees.

3. Connecticut: the State Supreme Court decision of October 2000,
holding that Pat Buchanan was the actual presidential nominee of the Reform
Party, is now reported. It is the first of the many lawsuits between the
Buchanan and Hagelin factions of the party to be reported, and it sets forth the
reasons why the Court felt that the Buchanan nomination was valid. It is
possible that the other lawsuits never will be reported, so this one will be
significant. The cite is 760 A 2d 1257. The decision also explains why Donna
Donovan (a Hagelin supporter) is the legal state chair of the Reform Party.

4. D.C.: on October 16, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower
court ruling in Alexander v Daley, 99-2062, over whether the
Constitution provides any protection for D.C. voters to congressional
representation. The lower court had turned down relief by a vote of 2-1; the
dissenter had argued that D.C. voters should be allowed to vote in Maryland
elections, which actually occurred before 1800.

5. Florida: on December 20, independent U.S. Senate candidate Willie
Logan dismissed his federal lawsuit which had alleged that it is
unconstitutional to automatically list the major parties first on the ballot.
Logan v Harris, 4:00-cv-358, Tallahassee.

Florida (2): the Brennan Center for Justice of New York city is
vigorously fighting the state's ban on letting ex-felons register to vote. The
Center argues that the ban, created in 1868, was passed with the purpose of
disenfranchising African-Americans, and therefore violates the 15th amendment.
The Florida ban affects more than 500,000 potential voters, and 24% of all
African-American men in the state. Johnson v Bush, 00-3542-civ. The
case is before Judge James King, a Nixon appointee.

6. Georgia: the Green Party filed a lawsuit in state court in
September, arguing that the state's 5% petition requirement for district and
county office violates the State Constitution. On October 27 the court denied
the state's motion to dismiss the suit, and a trial will be held. Dickson
v Secretary of State, 00-cv-27164, Fulton Co. Superior Court. The law has
been upheld many times in federal court, but no one had previously tried state
court.

7. Illinois: on December 4, the state asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
reverse the 7th circuit decision which said that any adult may circulate a
petition to place a candidate on a primary ballot. McGuffage v
Krislov, 00-923. The state says only registered voters who are residents
of the district, and members of that party, should be allowed to circulate.

Illinois (2): Ralph Nader has dismissed his lawsuit over the state's
June petition deadline, even though he won an injunction against it last year.
The action is unfortunate, since now there is no court case pending which might
cause that deadline to be declared unconstitutional. Nader 2000 v Illinois
State Board of Elections, 00-cv-4401, federal court, Chicago.

8. Maryland: there will be a hearing on January 18 in Green
Party of Maryland v Board of Elections, C-00-657880, in Anne Arundel Co.
Circuit Court. The party argues that since it is a qualified party, it is
unconstitutional for the state to require it to submit additional petitions to
place its nominees on the ballot.

9. North Carolina: Ralph Nader has dropped his federal lawsuit against
the May petition deadline for new parties to appear on the ballot. Before the
election, he had failed to win an injunction against that deadline, but the
issue of the constitutionality had not been decided. Nader 2000 v
Bartlett, 5:00-cv-348, Raleigh.

10. Ohio: on January 31, there will be a hearing in the 6th circuit in
Schrader v Blackwell, 00-3044, over whether the state must let
petitioning candidates choose a partisan label to be printed on the ballot.

11. Oregon: on November 22, a state court held a trial in
Freedom Socialist Party v Bradbury (Multnomah Circuit Court
3-02456), over a law which prohibits the Freedom Socialist Party from appearing
on the ballot, since the Socialist Party is already on the ballot in parts of
the state. The hearing went well for the party. The U.S., like most other
countries, has traditionally had multiple political parties with the word
"socialist" in their name. In the states in which two such parties are active,
Oregon is the only state which forbids both of them from having the word
"socialist" in their name. The Socialist Party supports the Freedom Socialist
lawsuit.

12. Puerto Rico: on October 2, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear
Civil Action Party v Puerto Rico, 00-124. The lower court (the
Puerto Rico Supreme Court) had upheld a law that only attorneys may circulate
petitions to get a new party on the ballot. 98,000 signatures are needed, and
only one party has ever compiled with this requirement, which has existed since
1978.

13. Tennessee: on September 18 the 6th circuit ruled that the state
may require registered voters to reveal their Social Security number, since the
federal Privacy Act lets states continue to ask for the number if they had been
doing it before 1975. McKay v Thompson, 226 F 3d 752.

14. Texas: on December 1, a U.S. District Court ruled that Dick Cheney
is a resident of Wyoming. Jones v Bush, 3:00-cv-2543, Dallas. The
U.S. Constitution says that presidential electors cannot vote for a presidential
candidate and a vice-presidential candidate, both of whom are "inhabitants" of
the same state as the electors. Plaintiff had argued that Cheney is an
inhabitant of Texas and therefore the Texas electors could not vote for both
Bush and Cheney. The judge ruled that "inhabitant" does not mean "domicile"
(everyone has only one domicile but may have more than one residence). On
December 7, the 5th circuit upheld the District Court, 00-11346.

15. Wyoming: on October 13, the State Supreme Court ruled that nothing
in the election code prohibits a member of one party, from winning the primary
of another party by write-in votes. A registered Republican had lost the
Republican primary for State Senate, but she had won the Democratic primary on
write-in votes. The Court said she was entitled to be the Democratic nominee.
Murphy v State Canvassing Board, 12 P 3d 677.

16. national: on December 12, a U.S. District Court in New York ruled
in a presidential debates case that the FEC is permitted to let corporations
donate money to the Commission on Presidential Debates. Committee for an
Unified Independent Party v FEC, 00-cv-3476, Manhatten. This is the same
conclusion that federal courts in D.C. and Boston had reached earlier.

1. Nebraska: the Secretary of State's office supports amending the law
to permit write-in votes for president, and is seeking a sponsor for the bill.

2. North Carolina: on December 5, the Election Law Revision Committee
voted to ask the legislature to move minor party and independent petition
deadlines to July; to lower the number of signatures for independent candidates;
to eliminate wording on the new party petition that requires signers to say they
are organizing the party; and to let voters remain registered in a party even
after it goes off the ballot. On January 4 the Committee will meet again and
decide whether to ask that the number of signatures for new parties be reduced.
On December 15, the Raleigh News and Observer editorialized in
favor of reducing the party petition requirement from 2% to 1%.

3. Oklahoma: Representative Ray Vaughn will introduce a bill to lower
the number of signatures needed for new parties and independent presidential
candidates, to 1% of the last vote cast (the current requirement for new parties
is 5%). A group of state political scientists has endorsed the idea.

4. West Virginia: the Secretary of State has asked the legislature to
repeal laws which forbid anyone from circulating a petition who has not obtained
"credentials" to do so. If the requirement is not repealed, the pending Nader
lawsuit will probably strike it down.

State legislature in Alaska and Washington must grapple with election law
revisions this year, since the blanket primary laws of both states have been
declared void. In Alaska, the Division of Elections has told all six qualified
political parties that if the legislature fails to act in 2001, the Division
will not hold any primaries in 2002 whatsoever. In that case, the parties will
be required to nominate candidates by their own resources.

In Washington state, it is likely that the legislature will change the
primary system to an open system, in which voters (in the privacy of the voting
booth) decide which party's primary to vote in.

In California, the Democratic Party has already exercised its option under
the new law passed last year, to let independent voters vote in its primary.
However, the party doesn't want independent voters to vote for County Central
Committee, and is backing SB 7 to implement this choice. The Republican Party
will decide what to do in February. The state's other qualified parties will
also be deciding whether to let independents vote in its primaries.

Advocates of alternate voting systems are expecting progress in 2001. In
Vermont, the Center for Voting and Democracy has a full-time lobbyist who hopes
to persuade the legislature to authorize Instant Runoff Voting. Since the
Democrats are more supportive and the Republicans now control the Vermont House,
the lobbyist hopes to win Republican support by a compromise which would permit
Instant Runoff Voting as well as the Indirect Initiative (Vermont does not
currently have an initiative procedure).

The total votes cast (including the seven other candidates
on the ballot, but not including write-in votes not yet tallied) was 105,377,639
votes. The percentage of non-Democrat, non-Republican votes for President was
3.73%.

The New York Gore vote includes 3,942,215 Democratic votes, 88,395 Working
Families votes, and 77,087 Liberal votes. The New York Bush vote includes
2,258,577 Republican votes and 144,797 Conservative votes. The New York Buchanan
vote includes 25,175 Right to Life votes and 6,424 Buchanan Reform votes. See above for vote totals
for the seven other candidates who were on the ballot in at least one state. *
means write-in total. ? means write-ins not tallied yet.

Web Note: this table includes corrections made after the
printed newsletter was completed and mailed.For additional corrections, see
this errata.

Rep.

Dem.

Libt.

Nat Law

Green

Reform

Const.

indp.

Other

Alabama

849,229

485,660

96,908

Alaska

190,862

45,372

4,802

22,440

Arizona

854,715

557,849

41,670

2,412

9,010

Arkansas

277,146

355,366

California

4,446,295

5,407,163

277,645

227,307

37,952

33,311

7,474

Colorado

968,651

496,045

85,806

34,981

12,398

7,885

9,955

8,161

Connecticut

590,689

699,237

2,034

1,258

7,303

7,724

5,238

Delaware

211,797

96,488

2,351

2,490

Florida

2,851,623

1,976,189

27,197

68,896

54,030

31,649

Georgia

1,498,337

918,085

Hawaii

110,895

221,373

8,156

Idaho

332,655

142,345

13,635

4,200

Illinois

1,907,306

2,453,674

32,204

65

Indiana

1,140,554

953,167

43,658

282

19,077

Iowa

717,322

531,642

17,542

851

Kansas

655,822

328,194

51,945

Kentucky

824,915

561,662

12,644

3,662

32,436

Louisiana

747,115

359,668

58,233

3,129

34,026

Maine

203,437

422,606

12,356

Maryland

856,306

1,060,857

238

104

7,017

Massachusetts

343,498

1,967,942

10,553

12,155

Michigan

1,786,980

2,177,618

48,100

16,344

15,602

6,709

18,272

Minnesota

993,371

1,234,204

17,151

24,248

19,667

75,097

Mississippi

468,483

495,687

15,510

6,459

Missouri

1,135,724

1,136,020

24,847

4,957

15,947

8,293

Montana

211,418

189,971

9,132

Nebraska

486,513

178,071

17,912

Nevada

330,884

224,848

9,354

1,143

5,547

3,913

9,515

New Hampshire

303,190

238,754

11,901

2,204

New Jersey

1,384,170

1,532,240

2,198

764

48,002

3,426

562

9,411

7,460

New Mexico

274,017

299,841

13,656

New York

2,235,452

3,051,701

2,008

42,858

440

1,318

490,073

North Carolina

1,421,501

1,287,537

69,544

1,218

North Dakota

127,251

151,173

22

7,212

Ohio

2,235,463

2,098,854

106,898

66,913

76,910

Oklahoma

701,820

336,955

23,253

4,897

5,930

14,660

Oregon

607,098

790,365

15,800

15,763

8,399

Pennsylvania

2,229,057

2,279,227

24,917

13,857

8,718

2,234

Rhode Island

89,454

247,247

4,536

42,625

South Carolina

729,799

523,144

31,104

9,484

4,200

16,532

6,331

South Dakota

231,083

78,321

5,357

Tennessee

991,984

819,100

39,433

2,418

Texas

2,932,411

2,799,051

247,963

5,577

Utah

426,648

304,797

8,886

2,555

597

15,271

Vermont

51,977

2,978

207,934

19,717

Virginia

1,131,999

1,060,484

46,016

174,225

Washington

997,877

1,245,872

82,289

4,231

52,142

West Virginia

108,769

420,784

50,319

Wisconsin

1,311,447

1,187,866

3,705

Wyoming

141,848

60,638

6,411

3,415

Dt. Columbia

10,258

158,824

4,594

1,419

TOTAL

46,667,115

46,649,778

1,727,157

447,789

321,126

180,157

106,023

661,947

643,665

PERCENT

47.91%

47.89%

1.77%

.46%

.33%

.19%

.11%

.68%

.66%

Above is the vote for House of Representatives. 4.20% of the vote was for
non-Republican, non-Democrat candidates. 2000 was the first election since 1984
at which this "other" House vote was higher than the presidential "other" vote.

On December 18, one elector from D.C. refused to vote for Al Gore. Instead,
she abstained, to protest the fact that D.C. has no voting member in Congress.
It was the first time since 1832 that any elector had failed to vote for anyone.
That year, two Maryland electors who had been elected to vote for Henry Clay,
didn't vote.

The Green Party is not recognized by the Federal Election Committee as a
"national committee", because there have been two rival national Green Party
organizations, and it hasn't been clear to either the FEC, or anyone else, how
to handle the rivalry. The Association of State Green Parties held a national
meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, December 8-10, and believes that it now has a
formula for agreement with The Greens/Green Party USA. Some individuals hold
office in both groups, and these individuals, who attended the ASGP meeting,
generally support a plan under which the ASGP would become the FEC-recognized
national committee [correction].
The Greens/Green Party USA would become a national activist "club" within the
national Green Party, and would give up its use of the word "party".

Formal recognition of this idea must wait for official action by The
Greens/Green Party USA, sometime this coming spring.

National leaders of the Reform Party has been concentrating on settling
intra-party lawsuits. The federal case in Lynchburg, Virginia, was settled on
December 28, and the state court case in Long Beach, California, has also been
settled by all, except for one individual. The party's next national convention
will be in the summer of 2001. Gerald Moan, the party's national chair, is also
working to woo the New York Indepencence Party back into affiliation. Pat
Choate, former national chair, is actively interested in the party.

Last month, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, leader of the Transcendal Meditation
Movement and a resident of the Netherlands, asked that the world's Natural Law
Parties disband. However, the Natural Law Party of the U.S. will continue to
exist. The U.S. party has gradually separated itself from the TM movement and
many of its candidates are not TM practitioners. The U.S. party is mulling over
the possibility of changing its name, and sees itself as the natural heir to
voters who want a "centrist" party.

Until the November 2000, no write-in candidate for president at a general
election had ever polled as much as 1% of the vote in any state. Independent
presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy's California showing in November 1976 had
been the best; that was .74%.

Ralph Nader broke that record in three states: in Idaho, his write-ins were
2.45% of the total vote cast for president; in Wyoming, 2.12%; in Indiana, .84%.
The only other state which counted Nader write-ins, Georgia, showed .51%.

The other three states in which Nader wasn't on the ballot were South Dakota
and Oklahoma (both of which ban write-ins); and North Carolina, which permits
write-ins but refused to count any for Nader because he failed to file a
declaration of write-in candidacy by the July deadline (at the time, he didn't
realize he wouldn't be on the ballot).